Date: 2/14/25 5:20 pm From: Wayne Hoffman (via carolinabirds Mailing List) <carolinabirds...> Subject: Re: Conservation Access Pass Proposed by NCWRC
Hi, Harry -
You make good points -
It is my hope that a user fee (should cost substantially less than a hunting license for non-consumptive use) gets birders, etc. standing to be heard in management decisions, and maybe representation on boards, etc.
Wayne Hoffman
From: "Harry LeGrand" <carolinabirds...> Cc: "CarolinaBirds" <carolinabirds...> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 4:50:37 PM Subject: Re: Conservation Access Pass Proposed by NCWRC
Folks,
I hope all of you in North Carolina have now had a chance to read the NC Wildlife Resources Commission's webpage on the proposed Conservation Access Pass (CAP), and especially the questions and answers:
This seems to be a user fee, for doing something most of us have been doing for free; and with paying for a pass, we birders seemingly get nothing in return. Note the use of "require" and "will need" in the Q and A section. I wonder if this push for a pass came from hunters, fishermen, and boaters, who have to pay to use the game lands, whereas currently hikers, birders, photographers, etc., don't. (Note that hunting and fishing are consumptive activities, whereby animals are taken from the wild; and boating typically requires the building and usage of boat ramps. Birding, photography, hiking, etc., are considered as non-consumptive activities.) The proposal might have come from within the Wildlife Commission staff; I don't know whose idea it was. Note the lack of anything about use of the CAP monies going for conservation uses. That might be a decision later. But also note:
Will NCWRC offer new amenities or infrastructure as a result of the access pass?
NCWRC offers minimally developed wild spaces for the enjoyment of wildlife and natural habitat. --
that WRC is not planning any new amenities or infrastructure, such as bathrooms or observation decks -- at least not now.
It is important to note that the public is not charged to visit NC State Parks (other than for swimming or camping), many or most national park units such as Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and national wildlife refuges such as Pea Island and Mattamuskeet. (Other states often do have fees or passes to visit such public lands, however.) And, please note that many to most of these parks and refuges do have restrooms and also some have visitor centers. Hardly any NC Game Land has facilities, other than boat ramps. There would be a bit of double-standard if WRC establishes a user fee on its lands whereas other public land agencies, with visitor facilities, have yet to do so.
And, as I mentioned yesterday, the questions and answers do not clarify a few items, such as whether there will be fines for people on game lands not carrying a pass. How would the staff patrol large game lands for passholders where there are often many public roads passing through them, or adjacent to them? The webpage says that people will be required to have a pass (or already existing license) to access the game lands, other than saying that "Individuals aged 16 and under would not be required to have their own access pass, but must be with an adult who has an access pass or valid license." Of course, there is no suggestion of the cost of a yearly CAP, as yet.
So, I don't see this as being anything close to a win-win, especially as there is nothing on that page saying that such CAP funds would be used for conservation purposes (such as building observation decks, parking lots, or bathrooms) or to benefit the Nongame Wildlife Program.
Those of you attending any of the meetings should come prepared to ask many questions. I will look for an outlet to express these comments, as being in Raleigh I don't plan to travel to Greensboro or Greenville to ask questions in person. I am not opposed to paying for such a pas s, and would do so if not a great cost, though a lot of questions and answers will need to be addressed; I don't want to be fined for simply walking around on a publicly-owned game land without a pass. (I will add that I have been paying about $20 extra yearly for my vanity license plate, for about 30 years; these funds go to the Clean Water/Natural Heritage Trust Fund, some of which goes to WRC to acquire game lands.)
Harry LeGrand Raleigh
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 7:22 PM Nate Dias < [ mailto:<carolinabirds...> | <carolinabirds...> ] > wrote:
Kay,
In addition to Federal Duck Stamps, there are also State Duck Stamps. To hunt ducks in South Carolina, one must purchase both. I presume NC is the same.
Respectfully, there is a problem with Mae's suggestion of using the existing "duck stamp framework" to require duck stamps to enter state wildlife management areas / state game lands, etc. The problem is that the powers that be would have no way to distinguish between hunters and non-consumptive users. It would all look like hunters to them.
Having a separate "Conservation Pass" would show that specific numbers of birders, hikers, wildlife photographers, etc. are pulling their own weight financially. By demonstrating that numbers of us non-hunters pay to maintain (and purchase) these conservation areas, it would give us a seat at the table and hopefully get more consideration in decisions on habitat management, access, focus of resources and staff time on non-game species, etc.
"These days I prefer to hunt with a camera. A good photograph demands more skill from the hunter, better nerves and more patience than the rifle shot." -- Bror Blixen
I think Duck Stamps go to federal funding thru U.S. Fish & Wildlife. This concept being discussed is about creating a means to contribute to state DNR coffers, I believe.
On Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 04:31:17 PM EST, M Howell < [ mailto:<hareboro...> | <hareboro...> ] > wrote:
I have been to states that require fees or a Duck Stamp for entry into wildlife refuges and similar areas. Wouldn't this, an established and known program, work for NC and SC?
From: [ mailto:<carolinabirds-request...> | <carolinabirds-request...> ] < [ mailto:<carolinabirds-request...> | <carolinabirds-request...> ] > on behalf of " [ mailto:<k.grinnell...> | <k.grinnell...> ] " < [ mailto:<carolinabirds...> | <carolinabirds...> ] > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 2:46:47 PM To: J. Merrill Lynch < [ mailto:<jmerrilllynch...> | <jmerrilllynch...> ] >; Nate Dias < [ mailto:<offshorebirder...> | <offshorebirder...> ] > Cc: Ann Robertson < [ mailto:<annbluebird2730...> | <annbluebird2730...> ] >; CarolinaBirds < [ mailto:<carolinabirds...> | <carolinabirds...> ] > Subject: Re: Conservation Access Pass Proposed by NCWRC I agree Nate! I'm sure Dr. Tom Mullikin, SC's new Exec Director of DNR has his hands full. I wonder if he heard from all the bird clubs and Audubons around the state of SC if he might consider putting this kind of action on his agenda.
As President of Hilton Head Audubon, I'm ready to stir up some energy for this!
"These days I prefer to hunt with a camera. A good photograph demands more skill from the hunter, better nerves and more patience than the rifle shot." -- Bror Blixen
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 1:11 PM "J. Merrill Lynch" < [ mailto:<carolinabirds...> | <carolinabirds...> ] > wrote:
BQ_BEGIN
I agree this would be a good thing to support. Many other states already have a special permit for access to public gamelands. A requirement to wear blaze orange during hunting season would be a sensible addition.
And I also agree it would give the non-hunting community a bigger seat at the table on decisions regarding public lands management.
J. Merrill Lynch Echo Valley Farm Watauga County, NC Elevation: 3,400 feet
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 11:16 AM Ann Robertson < [ mailto:<carolinabirds...> | <carolinabirds...> ] > wrote:
BQ_BEGIN
Dear Carolinabirders,
In this morning's Coastal Review, I read about an exciting proposal from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission to offer a "Conservation Access Pass". This would be the birder equivalent of a hunting / fishing license, and would renew annually. The pass would provide entry to 2 million acres of gameland, boating access areas, and more. It is not limited to birders; a range of recreational uses are mentioned
There are three public meetings across the state, coming up soon. There's also a VIRTUAL meeting on March 4th, for which you may register.
I was told a while back by a politically experienced birder that one reason birders don't carry as much weight with state officials as hunters is that we don't contribute to the public till with special taxes, licenses, etc. Apparently, at one time a "birders' tax" was proposed on items such as binoculars, birdseed, etc., that would have fed into conservation. Our flock apparently did not endorse this, sadly.
